PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary
matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered
into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21,
RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and
consents to the imposition of any sanction ranging from a letter of caution to a
definite suspension not to exceed two (2) years. See Rule 7(b),
RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. He requests the suspension be
made retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. [1] We accept the Agreement and impose a
definite suspension of two years, retroactive to the date of respondent’s
interim suspension. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

FACTS

On February 3,
2005, respondent’s membership in the South Carolina Bar was suspended due to his
non-compliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements for 2002.
Respondent represents he failed to comply with the CLE requirements due to
financial difficulties. On March 6, 2003, respondent’s membership in the South
Carolina Bar was suspended due to non-payment of his 2003 license fee.
Respondent represents he failed to pay the license fee due to financial
difficulties. On April 11, 2003, the Court issued an order suspending
respondent from the practice of law due to his failure to correct the foregoing
requirements for membership in the Bar.

Notwithstanding
his suspensions, respondent continued to work for an attorney through November
2003. Respondent represents his job consisted of clerical duties as he did not
appear in court or sign letters or pleadings. From mid-December 2003 to
January 2, 2004, respondent was employed as a contract attorney for Nextra
Litigation Solutions, LLC, on a document review project.

Thereafter, respondent worked as a
paralegal for a law firm from April 26, 2004, to June 11, 2004. Respondent
represented to the firm that his law license was on inactive status when, in
fact, he was suspended. Respondent represents that he misunderstood the rules
at the time and honestly believed that his license was inactive due to the fact
that he had been administratively suspended as opposed to suspended for an
ethical violation. Further, respondent represents he
was unaware at the time that Rule 34, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, prohibits a
suspended lawyer from working in any capacity connected with the law.

Respondent was reinstated to the practice
of law on June 28, 2004. On August 4, 2004, respondent was served with a
Notice of Full Investigation requiring him to respond to the allegations within
thirty (30) days pursuant to Rule 19(c)(3), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Respondent
failed to respond to the notice within thirty (30) days. Although he contacted ODC before he received the Notice of Full Investigation, respondent now
realizes that this did not excuse him from responding to the notice.
Respondent represents he was depressed over his financial situation and, as a
result, failed to properly respond to the Notice of Full Investigation.

Respondent remained unemployed until
March 7, 2005, when he accepted a position as an associate attorney with a law
firm. Respondent immediately advised his supervisor of his March 11, 2005
interim suspension.[2]
He is no longer employed by the firm.

Respondent was
admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1986[3] and the South Carolina Bar in 1999. He has no prior disciplinary history in
this state. Since being placed on interim suspension, respondent has fully
cooperated with ODC. Respondent represents that he is no longer suffering from
any meaningful depression.

LAW

Respondent admits that his
misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 413, RLDE,
specifically Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be a ground for discipline for lawyer to
violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or any other rules of this
jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of lawyers); Rule 7(a)(3) (it shall
be a ground for discipline for lawyer to willfully violate an order of the
Supreme Court or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand from a
disciplinary authority); Rule 7(a)(5) (it shall be a ground for discipline for lawyer
to engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to
bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct
demonstrating an unfitness to practice law); and Rule 7(a)(7) (it shall be a
ground for discipline for lawyer to willfully violate a court order). In
addition, respondent admits he has violated the following provisions of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 5.5(a) (lawyer shall not
practice law in violation of regulations of the legal profession); Rule 8.1(b)
(lawyer shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand from a
disciplinary authority); Rule 8.4(a)
(it is professional misconduct for lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct); and Rule 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engaging
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

CONCLUSION

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by
Consent and impose a definite suspension of two years, retroactive to the date
of respondent’s interim suspension. Within fifteen days of the date of this
opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing
that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

TOAL, C.J.,
MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and

BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1] Respondent was placed on interim suspension on March
11, 2005. In the Matter of Bonecutter, 363 S.C. 110, 610 S.E.2d 503
(2005).

[2] The interim suspension stemmed from respondent’s
failure to respond to the Notice of Full Investigation. Rule 17(c), RLDE, Rule
413, SCACR.

[3] The Supreme Court of Ohio suspended
respondent on April 8, 2005 for non-compliance with Ohio CLE requirements and
failure to pay a fine for non-compliance.